Letters: Go Daddy Takes on Critics | Adweek Letters: Go Daddy Takes on Critics | Adweek
Advertisement

Letters: Go Daddy Takes on Critics

Advertisement

Go Daddy Takes on Critics

You've just got to love the industry press. I'm referring to the column by Dr. Sharon Livingston [Adweek, Nov. 26] titled "Emotional Intelligence."

Dr. Livingston wrote that Go Daddy's first two Super Bowl commercials featured Go Daddy Girl Candice Michelle "almost baring her breasts." Had Dr. Livingston actually watched the ads, she would have known that we weren't even permitted to show cleavage, much less Candice "almost baring" anything.

She goes on to write "the titillation in the ad was so distracting that people won't get to the message at all." She then wrote, referring to both Go Daddy ads, "Sex doesn't always sell—sometimes it un-sells."

The ads Dr. Livingston referred to aired during the 2005 and 2006 Super Bowls. The 2005 ad has been arguably described as one of the most effective television ads ever aired. That ad is now being used as a case study in college advertising textbooks to demonstrate how effective unconventional ads can be. But the real test concerning any ad's effectiveness is simply this: Did it generate sales?

On the day before our 2005 Super Bowl ad aired, Go Daddy's worldwide market share of new domain names being registered was 16 percent. The following week our market share jumped to 25 percent and held there. So I think it's fair to say the ad was effective.

Our 2006 Super Bowl ad was widely panned by the ad critics, including Adweek's Barbara Lippert. However, it performed almost as well as our 2005 ad. Before the ad aired, Go Daddy's worldwide market share of new domain name registrations was 25 percent. The following week this number catapulted to 32 percent and held there. So you see, both ads not only worked, they were incredibly effective.

People tend to believe what "industry experts" write, particularly when the experts analyze an event that happened a few years ago. In this particular case, we have Dr. Livingston representing an advertising approach as ineffective when in fact the campaign was a smashing success. I think it's fair to say the good doctor's article embodied more emotion than intelligence.

Be careful what you believe. Even doctors sometimes get it wrong.

Bob Parsons

CEO and founder

Go Daddy Group

Scottsdale, Ariz.



Radio Host: Imus No Disgrace

Here's what I don't get.

[Your Nov. 3 story on Don Imus, "Imus Returns, but New Show May Be Tough Sell,"] refers to Imus as "disgraced." Oh, so? For what, exactly? For saying exactly the same thing that hip-hop music stations run 24/7? Is Clear Channel a disgraced company because they run hip-hop formats?

You refer to the Rev. Al Sharpton, but nary a descriptive word such as "disgraced" [is used]. Remember the Tawana Brawley scandal? That was a REAL disgrace.

Understand that I'm no Imus junkie, and I thought his comment about the girls basketball team was out of line. But in today's world, where Clinton has sex with Monica, Obama admits to cocaine use, Hillary still can't explain the Rose Law Firm billing records, Jesse Jackson had an out-of-wedlock child, it's Imus that's disgraced?

Cut me some slack.

Lynn Woolley

Radio talk show host

The Lynn Woolley Show

Temple, Texas